Jaundice (Colias)

About eros, it is precisely because Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method-although already when our article was in the publishing house, they independently abandoned their concept.

Uncle, stop raving, or the autumn aggravation? Stradomsky and Co. since 2008, contrary to your statement, have been proving by molecular methods that many species are just one and only one-P. eros. And the article on the N-sk region of what year, 2011, it seems?

Uncle, stop raving, or the autumn aggravation? Stradomsky and Co. since 2008, contrary to your statement, have been proving by molecular methods that many species are just one and only one-P. eros. And the article on the N-sk region of what year, 2011, it seems?

Their last article (where eros is already 1 type) was published when ours was in print (it was there for a long time). And the article contains links to their earlier work. Before you start yelling, read carefully (p. 239): "It is noteworthy that later B. V. Stradomsky abruptly changed his taxonomic point of view to the opposite, and in his work [Volodarsky and Stradomsky, 2008], on the basis of the revealed exceptionally high similarity of the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene, recognized them as conspecific, related to P. eros, the taxa eros, eroides Frivaldszky, 1835, tshetverikovi Nekrutenko, 1977, meoticus Zhdanko et Stshurov, 1998, erotulus Nekrutenko, 1985, and taimyrensis Korshunov, 1982. " However, there were still taxa that they did not reduce to eros, this happened in the second part of the article, which we will take into account they couldn't.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 18: 06

Their last article (where eros is 1 species) was published when ours was in print (it was there for a long time). And the article contains links to their earlier work. Read carefully before you start yelling. In Volodarsky D. I., Stradomsky B. V. 2008. Investigation of the phylogeny of the subgenus Polyommatus boisduvalii (s. str.) Latreille, 1804 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) using mt-DNA markers. Part 1 Eros is divided into several types.

So read it:
http://www.ssc-ras.ru/images/Polyommatus%2...%20Part%20I.pdf
http://www.univie.ac.at/population-ecology...y_etal_2009.pdf
http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1543/eje_107_3_325_Wiemers.pdf

So read it:
http://www.ssc-ras.ru/images/Polyommatus%2...%20Part%20I.pdf
http://www.univie.ac.at/population-ecology...y_etal_2009.pdf
http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1543/eje_107_3_325_Wiemers.pdf

I'm sorry, it's not my fault that you're not paying attention. In the article, everything is chewed up (p. 239): "It is noteworthy that later B. V. Stradomsky abruptly changed his taxonomic point of view to the opposite, and in [Volodarsky and Stradomsky, 2008], based on the extremely high similarity of the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene, he recognized them as conspecific, belonging to a single species P. eros, taxa eros, eroides Frivaldszky, 1835, tshetverikovi Nekrutenko, 1977, meoticus Zhdanko et Stshurov, 1998, erotulus Nekrutenko, 1985, and taimyrensis Korshunov, 1982. " However, there were still taxa that they did not reduce to eros, this happened in the second part of the article, which we could not take into account.. Naturally, I also read these works, but I couldn't take them into account in my article.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 18: 09

I'm sorry, it's not my fault that you're not paying attention. In the article, everything is chewed up (p. 239): "It is noteworthy that later B. V. Stradomsky abruptly changed his taxonomic point of view to the opposite, and in [Volodarsky and Stradomsky, 2008], based on the extremely high similarity of the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene, he recognized them as conspecific, belonging to a single species P. eros, taxa eros, eroides Frivaldszky, 1835, tshetverikovi Nekrutenko, 1977, meoticus Zhdanko et Stshurov, 1998, erotulus Nekrutenko, 1985, and taimyrensis Korshunov, 1982. " However, there were still taxa that they did not reduce to eros, this happened in the second part of the article, which we could not take into account.. Naturally, I also read these works, but I couldn't take them into account in my article.

This is completely different from what was written today: "Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method-although after the publication of our article they abandoned their concept." And, by the way, I didn't read much about it. As it seemed to me, the author is not Volodarsky (in your careful reading), but Vodolazhsky?

This is completely different from what was written today: "Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method-although after the publication of our article they abandoned their concept." And, by the way, I didn't read much about it. As it seemed to me, the author is not Volodarsky (in your careful reading), but Vodolazhsky?

Please forgive the typesetter for the typo, and the authors for omitting it. About the fact that "I wrote today", I was on the memory and not quite exactly, and then I checked and gave a quote. What else do you dislike? Still, this is a forum, not a magazine, and memory fails.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 18: 20

13-15 these are Z-Sib arions. In the Novosibirsk region. To the west of the Ob River (where there is no cyanecule), arions are only of the type shown in Fig. 13-15. Such as I have in the picture, with the combination of signs of arion and cyanecula, are found mainly on Bugotak hills together with standard arion and cyanecula.

Your "border" is the intensity of the black dusting between two rows of edge spots. It is usually intense in the arion and not intense in the cyanecule. There are exceptions - your Fig. 16, this is not an arion, but a cyanecule with incomplete melanism (it also has other spots on the wing enlarged; however, the specimen can be hybrid); your Saurons are close to this. Your "border" attribute should be replaced with "intense black pollination between two rows of spots on the outer edge of the rcc. until the border is formed". The ratio of the spot size in the cell and the width of the "border" on the RCC is not necessary, because the "border" has the width of the distance between the rows of spots, which is the same in arion and cyanecula (in cyanecula, the inner row of spots is often, but not always, reduced; in Sauron, unlike other cyanecules, it seems to be completely the inner row of edge spots is represented).

Now about pollination of the bottom of the zkr as the most important feature. Arion and cyanecula are distinguished not just by the intensity of sputtering, but by intense metallic pollination on the underside of the zcr, including the leading edge of the cyanecule and the absence of pollination of the leading edge (in fact, the upper half of the wing) in arion. In all the arions in your pictures (except Shebalinsky No. 16, which is a melanistic cyanecule), pollination occupies only the basal and anal parts of the wing, and there is no pollination in the upper third. In arion, pollination does not extend beyond the median row of spots (it occurs only in very bright specimens). and only along the anal edge). All your cyanecules (including Shebalin's arion) have standard "cyanecule" pollination.

I put only one table out of five. Two tables are arions and cyanecules. 16 - this is Arion, the same ones are definitely found in the Caucasus and even Nizhny Novgorod region. There is no point in building a vegetable garden - the sign works, no matter how you paraphrase it, arions and cyanecules are distributed with a bang. Correlation of the cornutus trait was checked for each specimen, and the number of genitals allowed is simply insanely large. I myself have a lot of arions and cyanecules in my collection, I can build "wedges" from the same place from almost black arions to almost cyanecules - from regions where cyanecules can not exist in principle. When I was young, I was almost tempted by the devil to describe a "cyanecula" from the steppe regions of the Nizhny Novgorod region-thank God, Yu. P. wrote about it first, so he gave me such a hard time that since then I have lost the desire to look for what is not there, where it can not be.

I repeat - expand the" area " of research, and to the maximum - serial material. Even if it is insanely torn, the signs will still be visible.

Please forgive the typesetter for the typo, and the authors for omitting it. About the fact that "I wrote today", I was on the memory and not quite exactly, and then I checked and gave a quote. What else do you dislike? Still, this is a forum, not a magazine, and memory fails.

I don't like the fact that you're making a big deal out of it, and the 2011 article couldn't possibly have influenced Stradomsky and Co. ' s change of heart in 2008. Most likely, their opinion changed precisely because Ko started using molecular methods and stopped basing her views on classical morphology.

I put only one table out of five. Two tables are arions and cyanecules. 16 - this is Arion, the same ones are definitely found in the Caucasus and even Nizhny Novgorod region. There is no point in building a vegetable garden - the sign works, no matter how you paraphrase it, arions and cyanecules are distributed with a bang. Correlation of the cornutus trait was checked for each specimen, and the number of genitals allowed is simply insanely large. I myself have a lot of arions and cyanecules in my collection, I can build "wedges" from the same place from almost black arions to almost cyanecules - from regions where cyanecules can not exist in principle. When I was young, I was almost tempted by the devil to describe a "cyanecula" from the steppe regions of the Nizhny Novgorod region-thank God, Yu. P. wrote about it first, so he gave me such a hard time that since then I have lost the desire to look for what is not there, where it can not be.

I repeat - expand the" area " of research, and to the maximum - serial material. Even if it is insanely torn, the signs will still be visible.

Stas, I checked all the material in ISiEZh and in Ivonin's collection on arion/cyanecula, there is quite enough of it, and I am absolutely sure of the signs that I have outlined to you. Review the undersides of your "almost cyanecules" wings from under the Bottom-I'm almost sure it's metallic. pollination is there on the half-wing. It's too bad that you didn't ask me for photos from here when preparing the revision, I would have sent them to you, and now the conversation about "hybrids" would have been financially justified, but it would have been better to discuss it in a quiet personal correspondence. Whatever it is in the Nizhny Novgorod region, there is no border between arion and cyanecula, but here it passes. There are enough arions, cyanecules, and intermediate forms. In the Northern Altai (up to this Shebalin), there are also both taxa and intermediate forms, which are described in the article. As for the Shebalin form, what you have clung to is a cyanecule with incomplete melanism (enlarged spots on the wings, which makes the extreme two merge and look like a border), such as I came across in Tuva.
PS Here, by the way, is an aberrant cyanecule from the Bugotak hills, similar to Shebalinskaya.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 23: 26

Pictures:

cyanecula_abb.jpg — (180.26к)

I don't like the fact that you're making a big deal out of it, and the 2011 article couldn't possibly have influenced Stradomsky and Co. ' s change of heart in 2008. Most likely, their opinion changed precisely because Ko started using molecular methods and stopped basing her views on classical morphology.

You're distorting it. WHERE does it say that our article influenced Stradomsky?

Stas, I checked all the material in ISiEZh and in Ivonin's collection on arion/cyanecula, there is quite enough of it, and I am absolutely sure of the signs that I have outlined to you. Review the undersides of your "almost cyanecules" wings from under the Bottom-I'm almost sure it's metallic. pollination is there on the half-wing. It's too bad that you didn't ask me for photos from here when preparing the revision, I would have sent them to you, and now the conversation about "hybrids" would have been financially justified, but it would have been better to discuss it in a quiet personal correspondence. Whatever it is in the Nizhny Novgorod region, there is no border between arion and cyanecula, but here it passes. There are enough arions, cyanecules, and intermediate forms. In the Northern Altai (up to this Shebalin), there are also both taxa and intermediate forms, which are described in the article. As for the Shebalin form, what you have clung to is a cyanecule with incomplete melanism (enlarged spots on the wings, which makes the extreme two merge and look like a border), such as I came across in Tuva.

I've seen material from Siberia, Central Asia, and Europe. When I was preparing the revision, I watched ZIN, ZMMU, Berlin, Helsinki, Vienna, London and even Ottawa (there is also a little bit of Palearctic there). The sample is huge! And in general, this is not something that I could have "imagined" - these are naked statistics, which I decided not to give in the article (now I think in vain). The conclusion is that it is worth making a separate article, with all the statistics, specifically for the cyanecule-arion, and using my materials on the myrmecophilia of these species in Central Asia. I am deeply convinced that these are two different species, the cyanecule is young. Arion - opstarshe. The age of the first is about 70 thousand years, the second - about 30. Therefore, the depth of differences between them is less than, say, between the same-aged arion and arionides. It is a pity that historical zoogeography is badly printed - there are no fossils," naked " theories are not needed by anyone.

You're distorting it. WHERE does it say that our article influenced Stradomsky?

But changing posts with a deliberate distortion of the primary meaning
only indicates your dishonesty.

I've seen material from Siberia, Central Asia, and Europe. When I was preparing the revision, I watched ZIN, ZMMU, Berlin, Helsinki, Vienna, London and even Ottawa (there is also a little bit of Palearctic there). The sample is huge! And in general, this is not something that I could have "imagined" - these are naked statistics, which I decided not to give in the article (now I think in vain). The conclusion is that it is worth making a separate article, with all the statistics, specifically for the cyanecule-arion, and using my materials on the myrmecophilia of these species in Central Asia. I am deeply convinced that these are two different species, the cyanecule is young. Arion - opstarshe. The age of the first is about 70 thousand years, the second - about 30. Therefore, the depth of differences between them is less than, say, between the same-aged arion and arionides. It is a pity that historical zoogeography is badly printed - there are no fossils," naked " theories are not needed by anyone.

You may be right that these are different types, but I'm not sure about that. If the nominative arion and cyanecule are subspecies, then the stratification of all subspecies can be anything. "Non-nominative" subspecies of arion can have any color, but as for the dark outer edge, your Sauron is exactly the transitional form between arion and cyanecula! I was studying the difference between a nominative arion (and the related rueli, if it is worth separating it from a nominative one at all) and a cyanecule, not between all arions and a cyanecule. Still, check your mat-l from this point of view. And please send me the rest of your tables from the article, so at least I'll understand what subspecies you're talking about. sergenicko@mail.ru

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 20: 08

But changing posts with a deliberate distortion of the primary meaning
only indicates your dishonesty.

Check the time of the editorial office - it is earlier than your emails. I myself noticed that I was clumsy and corrected it immediately. Moreover, it was not about the 1st part of the article (2008), but about the 2nd. That's it, nephew.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 19: 14

Check the time of the editorial office - it is earlier than your emails. I myself noticed that I was clumsy and corrected it immediately. That's it, nephew.

The main thing was not corrected:
"Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method"
They proved exactly the opposite.

The main thing was not corrected:
"Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method"
They proved exactly the opposite.

I have already apologized for the inaccuracy, so I gave a full quote from myself, where it is written that the molecular spopob was combined, but in the 1st part they missed a few. subspecies that remained as if separate species were added to the 2nd one and this was corrected. Stradomsky et al., 2006; 2007 states the fractional division of eros into many species.

The main thing was not corrected:
"Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method"
They proved exactly the opposite.

They proved neither. They licked their fingers and suggested that the wind might be blowing in a nearby town-no more.

And don't forget - to call comparing individuals based on a tiny piece of a single mitochondrial gene "molecular methods" is too loud and pretentious. For:
1. This piece contains too little information about variability that is suitable for adequate infra-specific comparisons, and often also for specific ones.
2. The information contained in it often contradicts the information contained in other parts of the genome.
3. Differences in mtDNA do not directly indicate the level of divergence between populations and species. In recently diverged species, it can be close to or equal to zero, while in other species you can find several very different options. Of course, there are some "general patterns" here, but they cannot be extrapolated to specific cases of specific species and populations. Since this is the "average temperature in the hospital", no more - it is impossible to discharge everyone from the hospital if the average temperature of patients was 36.6!
4. Mitochondrial DNA by its nature cannot indicate hybridization.

So, if you see how someone proves the presence/absence of hybridization in mitochondria," reliably " distinguishes species, establishes a taxonomic rank, then take it with great caution. Almost always in such works, the desired is passed off as proven.

But with the help of mtDNA, something can still be done, namely:
1. Attempt to reconstruct the phylogenies of mtDNA variants. However, these are not necessarily phylogenies of taxa, as see point 2 above. And almost always at the level of subspecies and related species, nothing works here.
2. It is possible to compare the frequencies of haplotypes found in populations. So you can identify some difference between populations and try to track the history of their settlement by area. In this spirit, only Americans and Helikonias work seriously, although they have long since buried mtDNA as a source of information - the 21st century is still in the yard.
3. Distinguish between species or populations for which it was shown earlier that all representatives of these species have a species-specific form of mtDNA that is not found in other species. But I don't recall any Palearctic butterfly species for which such work has been done. In some studies, such as the one mentioned above by Dinca et al., the study of the diversity of mtDNA forms is simulated on a tiny number of individuals studied. But there is no point in doing this, because all further conclusions are nothing more than falsifying facts.

And don't forget - to call comparing individuals based on a tiny piece of a single mitochondrial gene "molecular methods" is too loud and pretentious.

It's interesting, have you at least looked at the works presented above, or are you just talking about mtDNA out of inertia?
In these studies (at least the last two), not only a small piece of mtDNA was studied, but also the hypervariable ITS2 sequence, which, unlike mtDNA, often gives strong differences even in populations (see the picture - one copy has heterozygosity for this locus with a deletion in one of the alleles of more than 20, while there are etc. point differences). In this case, the level of these differences should be even higher in cross-species comparison. Moreover, the ITS2 protein-non-coding region and, accordingly, its variability potential are unlimited within certain limits. And, if within the framework of P. eros it is almost identical from Spain to Magadan, then, apparently, this indicates something.

Pictures:

haplotypes.jpg — (217.98к)

It's interesting, have you at least looked at the works presented above, or are you just talking about mtDNA out of inertia?
In these studies (at least the last two), not only a small piece of mtDNA was studied, but also the hypervariable ITS2 sequence, which, unlike mtDNA, often gives strong differences even in populations (see the picture - one copy has heterozygosity for this locus with a deletion in one of the alleles of more than 20, while there are etc. point differences). In this case, the level of these differences should be even higher in cross-species comparison. Moreover, the ITS2 protein-non-coding region and, accordingly, its variability potential are unlimited within certain limits. And, if within the framework of P. eros it is almost identical from Spain to Magadan, then, apparently, this indicates something.

Yes, I'm only talking about COI, as the conversation so far has only been about it. Rather, it is even about the principles of molecular taxonomy in general, rather than about specific markers and articles.

And of course, the simultaneous comparison by ITS shows more and causes more confidence! But when you say that "the level of these differences should be even higher in cross-species comparison", you are overreacting. The level of differences in ITS doesn't owe anyone anything! In different species that diverged relatively or very long ago, it should probably be higher in theory - but no more. Although, in general, the hypothesis of conspecificity of eros looks quite plausible and I personally like it. After all, their range is almost continuous, they fly well, and the dramatic adaptations and features inherent in individual populations are unknown... seem.

However, we can assume that the area of eros was formed very recently - within 10 thousand years (which is very likely due to the history of climate). During this time, adaptations, duplications, epigenetics, and much more could have created new species, but this circumstance will not affect the sequence of even most hypervariable sites. Therefore, once again, the absence of variability in some sequences does not in itself indicate the taxonomic rank of the taxa under study. I now have this with anemones turns out-for COI, COII, Cytb, 16s, 18s, 28s, actin, Histone H3, Its1+2 three species are identical to the last nucleotide. At the same time, the species are confined to different biotopes, look very different, are diagnosed with a bunch of signs, have a different composition of lipids, and differ in allozymes.
By the way, the picture is beautiful - I would love to show students what a heterozygote with a deletion looks like!

This post was edited by ayc - 10/30/2013 08: 11

However, we can assume that the area of eros was formed very recently - within 10 thousand years (which is very likely due to the history of climate). During this time, adaptations, duplications, epigenetics, and much more could have created new species, but this circumstance will not affect the sequence of even most hypervariable sites.

Please start for students.
Although not the same topic, and it was already discussed, but if the question is raised, I will give an example:
"Eggs of the lowland P. eros boisduvalii, whose forage plant is broom, were collected and grown in mountain conditions (1600 m) not on broom, but on mountain astragalus (Astragalus fragrans). This resulted in an adult morphologically more similar to the mountain "species" P. meoticus (wing background shade, no black marginal border on the forewings)"
, i.e., these "species"are only forms of P. eros.
As well as icarus from the same mother, but grown on different feeds.
It turns out that morphology and "speciation" here is not affected by any change in the gene apparatus, but only by the already genetically determined breadth of morphological variability and plasticity in applicability to the conditions of existence. Without forming independent species. Grown "populations" are confined to different biotopes, and look different, and are diagnosed with a number of signs (including different food sources and seemingly very conservative - genital), but only children of the same mother. And eros generally became bivoltine, fundamentally changing the phenology.

This post was edited by bora - 10/30/2013 11:35 am

Pictures:

eros.jpg — (114.01к)


icarus.jpg — (122.88к)

Among our typically colored arions, we rarely come across butterflies that are very similar to the cyanicula. For example, here is this male from my collections. http://www.dprgek.ru/redbook/detail.php-ID_SPEC=16232.htm

Similar, but not her-compare the color of the bottom of the zkr in cyanecules and in your arions. There is actually a difference not in the metal pollination itself, but in its location. In the cyanecule, it is continuous and uniform. But S. Korb's sign "arion always has a border"(i.e. darkening between two rows of marginal spots) not universal at all.

The phenomenon of hybridization in the light of recent events can be proved ONLY by molecular methods. I hope you were present at the last Congress of REO - there was a very interesting plenary report by V. A. Lukhtanov devoted to this phenomenon.

If there is any data , I will be happy to read it. If this is an article on pigeons in the Novosibirsk region, recently published in the Eurasian Entomological Journal , then everything is very, very far-fetched and very vague, there is no clear evidence. And there is no trial...

Geneticists, please enlighten us-what are the "recent events" in the light of which hybridization can ONLY be PROVED by molecular methods?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/30/2013 11: 56

Please start for students.
Although not the same topic, and it was already discussed, but if the question is raised, I will give an example:
"Eggs of the lowland P. eros boisduvalii, whose forage plant is broom, were collected and grown in mountain conditions (1600 m) not on broom, but on mountain astragalus (Astragalus fragrans). This resulted in an adult morphologically more similar to the mountain "species" P. meoticus (wing background shade, no black marginal border on the forewings)"
, i.e., these "species"are only forms of P. eros.
As well as icarus from the same mother, but grown on different feeds.
It turns out that morphology and "speciation" here is not affected by any change in the gene apparatus, but only by the already genetically determined breadth of morphological variability and plasticity in applicability to the conditions of existence. Without forming independent species. Grown "populations" are confined to different biotopes, and look different, and are diagnosed with a number of signs (including different food sources and seemingly very conservative - genital), but only children of the same mother. And eros generally became bivoltine, fundamentally changing the phenology.

Boris, please excuse me that in the heat of the discussion about arions, I accidentally "kicked" you not exactly on the case - I was referring to your attempts to prove the multiplicity of species in the place of eros by morphological features, but it turned out that by molecular ones, according to which you just brought the" types " of eros (which we also did with Ivoninym and Kosterinym made independently, because your work 2008 read already much later writing the work). So please accept my apologies again. By the way, it seems to be based on the transition forms in the Zap. In Siberia, Aurelia and Menetriesi are also reduced to one type.

Boris, please excuse me that in the heat of the discussion about arions, I accidentally "kicked" you not exactly on the case - I was referring to your attempts to prove the multiplicity of species in the place of eros by morphological features, but it turned out that by molecular ones, according to which you just brought the" types " of eros (which we also did with Ivoninym and Kosterinym made independently, because your work 2008 read already much later writing the work). So please accept my apologies again. By the way, it seems to be based on the transition forms in the Zap. In Siberia, Aurelia and Menetriesi are also reduced to one type.

For God's sake!
Previously, I really stood on the principles of classical morphological taxonomy (such a school), according to the principles of which the same eros, indeed, can be plotted on a bunch of species with indubitable hiatus, and only when I got a sequencer at my disposal, and also began to model the conditions for the development of pigeons, "turning" one "species" into another, Then I looked at everything in a completely different way.
Unfortunately, I can't comment on the situation with Melitaea aurelia and its relatives, especially from Siberia, because I don't deal with this group. But, judging by what is written in the article, the differences lie in the nuances of the structure of gnathos. I observe a similar case in various forms of P. corydonius. Here, the presence of pronounced teeth on gnathos branches seems to play an adaptive role in high-altitude populations. A decrease from 2500 m to 1500 m leads to the appearance of individuals without teeth in populations, and on the Black Sea coast all individuals are "toothless". So the genital analysis and its signs are also flawed.

For God's sake!
Previously, I really stood on the principles of classical morphological taxonomy (such a school), according to the principles of which the same eros, indeed, can be plotted on a bunch of species with indubitable hiatus, and only when I got a sequencer at my disposal, and also began to model the conditions for the development of pigeons, "turning" one "species" into another, Then I looked at everything in a completely different way.
Unfortunately, I can't comment on the situation with Melitaea aurelia and its relatives, especially from Siberia, because I don't deal with this group. But, judging by what is written in the article, the differences lie in the nuances of the structure of gnathos. I observe a similar case in various forms of P. corydonius. Here, the presence of pronounced teeth on gnathos branches seems to play an adaptive role in high-altitude populations. A decrease from 2500 m to 1500 m leads to the appearance of individuals without teeth in populations, and on the Black Sea coast all individuals are "toothless". So the genital analysis and its signs are also flawed.

Very interesting, thank you.

Geneticists, please enlighten us-what are the "recent events" in the light of which hybridization can ONLY be PROVED by molecular methods?

To prove hybridization in the course of an experiment, it is elementary and easy: you pair A and B and get children of AB. It is more difficult to prove the existence of hybrids of two taxa in nature. First, we need to prove that a variant of some gene A is fixed in one taxon, and another taxon has a variant B. And then it remains to find individuals with the AB genotype in nature. But this was clear almost 100 years ago. But what "recent events" are in isolation from the context of what has been said - I can't guess.

Yes, and what stuck to crossing and hybrids. Science knows thousands of cases of interspecific hybridization, including the fecundity of hybrid offspring. Don't take the biological concept of a species too literally - this thing isn't very universal.

To prove hybridization in the course of an experiment, it is elementary and easy: you pair A and B and get children of AB. It is more difficult to prove the existence of hybrids of two taxa in nature. First, we need to prove that a variant of some gene A is fixed in one taxon, and another taxon has a variant B. And then it remains to find individuals with the AB genotype in nature. But this was clear almost 100 years ago. But what "recent events" are in isolation from the context of what has been said - I can't guess.

Yes, and what stuck to crossing and hybrids. Science knows thousands of cases of interspecific hybridization, including the fecundity of hybrid offspring. Don't take the biological concept of a species too literally - this thing isn't very universal.

I'm not bothering you, it's me.

Dear guk wrote to me :" What hybrids between subspecies.
<...> The molecular model shows well even when close populations of the same species diverged for a while, and then converged again."

and dear rhopalocera.com that " The phenomenon of hybridization in the light of recent events can be proved ONLY by molecular methods."

I fill up the jaundice topic with these questions, because they are general and relate, among other things, to the taxonomy of jaundice.

For God's sake!
Previously, I really stood on the principles of classical morphological taxonomy (such a school), according to the principles of which the same eros, indeed, can be plotted on a bunch of species with indubitable hiatus, and only when I got a sequencer at my disposal, and also began to model the conditions for the development of pigeons, "turning" one "species" into another, Then I looked at everything in a completely different way.
Unfortunately, I can't comment on the situation with Melitaea aurelia and its relatives, especially from Siberia, because I don't deal with this group. But, judging by what is written in the article, the differences lie in the nuances of the structure of gnathos. I observe a similar case in various forms of P. corydonius. Here, the presence of pronounced teeth on gnathos branches seems to play an adaptive role in high-altitude populations. A decrease from 2500 m to 1500 m leads to the appearance of individuals without teeth in populations, and on the Black Sea coast all individuals are "toothless". So the genital analysis and its signs are also flawed.

That's why I "love" taxonomists, faunists and zoogeographers! Having become interested in the same butterflies, a person first becomes interested in the fauna of the available areas. Then there are the inaccessible ones. Then it comes to him that the fauna consists of something ambiguous and he is interested in taxonomy. And only then, and very sometimes, does a person come to think about what we are systematizing, what are the entities being systematized, what are the basic principles of taxonomy........ although it would be logical to work in the opposite direction: first determine the basic principles, then systematize on their basis, and only then do you study the fauna. But this will not happen soon, because it is much easier to write an article about "The butterflies of southwesterm ****land and adjacent areas" than to conduct experiments for years in order to understand what a species or subspecies is, why they are obtained and how to recognize them... and then understand that all taxa are dynamic multidimensional clouds of variable traits, that there can be no unambiguous taxonomy by definition, and that the best taxonomy can be very convenient for splitting butterflies into boxes, but none of them will describe the real state of affairs. In short, all creative success

I'm not bothering you, it's me.

Dear guk wrote to me :" What hybrids between subspecies.
<...> The molecular model shows well even when close populations of the same species diverged for a while, and then converged again."

and dear rhopalocera.com that " The phenomenon of hybridization in the light of recent events can be proved ONLY by molecular methods."

I fill up the jaundice topic with these questions, because they are general and relate, among other things, to the taxonomy of jaundice.

Haha! After maculinei and poliommatus, these zhultukhs are no longer afraid of the devil!

Uv. guk clearly argued something wrong. And from uv. rh.com I would also be happy to hear an explanation. Like the "genome drift" I asked him about. After all, it is obvious that a person wants to say something interesting, but just a little incorrectly formulated his idea, which is why it turned out to be incomprehensible...... guys, I don't run into it. Just the format of communication in the forum tends to crookedly convey to the interlocutor the essence of what was said. There is no escape from this, and sometimes you have to repeat yourself in other words in order to be understood. If you really set the goal of being understood, and not sending the interlocutor far away

This post was edited by ayc - 10/30/2013 15: 34

Haha! After maculinei and poliommatus, these zhultukhs are no longer afraid of the devil!

Uv. guk clearly argued something wrong. And from uv. rh.com I would also be happy to hear an explanation. Like the "genome drift" I asked him about. After all, it is obvious that a person wants to say something interesting, but just a little incorrectly formulated his idea, which is why it turned out to be incomprehensible...... guys, I don't run into it. Just the format of communication in the forum tends to crookedly convey to the interlocutor the essence of what was said. There is no escape from this, and sometimes you have to repeat yourself in other words in order to be understood. If you really set the goal of being understood, and not sending the interlocutor far away

I, not being a geneticist, do not feel entitled to answer such passages in substance, although I understand that they are "not consecutive", and I understand the essence and seem to know the answer. As for "first determine the basic principles, then systematize on their basis, and only then study the fauna", then you have a contradiction - you yourself rightly write (I betray in my own words) that any universals are lame. But taxonomy and faunistics are necessary, and it is impossible to study each species in the way Stradomsky does with his eros and icars, for example - there is not enough life even for one small group, and then within a limited region. Therefore, it remains to guess by indirect signs and somehow come to a consensus.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/30/2013 16: 04

..... although it would be logical to work in the opposite direction: first define the basic principles, then systematize them on the basis of them

And you, probably, right away so sinless and perfect, and even knowing how to explain everything correctly to everyone, who needs to be and where to poke your muzzle modeled, cast and polished? We are simpler, we often make mistakes, we sometimes make mistakes, but we work, develop and strive for a more perfect state of our mind, but we do not speak in a mentoring tone and do not raise our opinion to the absolute. And we are usually friendly.

This post was edited by bora - 10/30/2013 16: 15

Uv. guk clearly argued something wrong.

I'm not the only one who "screwed up"here...
First, you write:
"By the way, there were words about the DNA and identity of erate and croceus. I have several genes, so yes, this is one "species" From Spain to Japan, Tibet and Israel. But it's all bullshit. These forms are quite young, so they simply haven't accumulated enough nucleotide substitutions."

And then this passage:
"However... in addition to the background color of the wings, is there a clear difference between them? I don't remember." If not, then probably yes, this is all one species, since the color change of yellow-orange-red pigment in whiteflies is a minor and too frequent event to give it any weight."

What happens? But I will not write that this is why I "love" geneticists.

And you, probably, right away so sinless and perfect, and even knowing how to explain everything correctly to everyone, who needs to be and where to poke your muzzle modeled, cast and polished?

This is such maximalism, the requirement for an outside observer to tell the truth on behalf of the object of study. All our arguments in taxonomy are "circumstantial evidence", and ideally they should form a rigid system and not contradict each other. But most often, the evidence system is not collected objectively because of the impossibility of a detailed study of the taxon, and very often because of the lack of collection material (what kind of observations are there!) and a rare grid of fees. Hence the ballast of semi-fictitious " species "and" subspecies " that inevitably creep from job to job and please only amateurs and merchants.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/30/2013 17: 00

I'm not the only one who "screwed up"here...
First, you write:
"By the way, there were words about the DNA and identity of erate and croceus. I have several genes, so yes, this is one "species" From Spain to Japan, Tibet and Israel. But it's all bullshit. These forms are quite young, so they simply haven't accumulated enough nucleotide substitutions."

And then this passage:
"However... in addition to the background color of the wings, is there a clear difference between them? I don't remember." If not, then probably yes, this is all one species, since the color change of yellow-orange-red pigment in whiteflies is a minor and too frequent event to give it any weight."

What happens? But I will not write that this is why I "love" geneticists.

About erate and croceus and the fluctuation in the opinions of aus: it is obvious that molecular genetics will not say either pro or contra about them yet, since ranking by the few loci with which it is currently working does not allow us to answer whether such young taxa are conspecific or not. In addition to the standard solution (two species), it can be a polymorphic species (in Europe it is not divided into subspecies, and color differences are population chips), or several European subspecies of the same species (stable color is characteristic for some, but varies for others). We need observations from areas where they seem to co-exist and a careful revision of the described forms. It is very important whether each of the taxa in such localities lives "its own life" - because as I understand it, this is the most important sign for you that alpha and chiala are not conspecific. Whether Croceus and erate were tested for protein-noncoding loci is somewhat more significant than COI.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/30/2013 22: 53

Therefore, it remains to guess by indirect signs and somehow come to a consensus.

But this is our personal problem. It is unknown to biodiversity... but progress does not stand still, and in a few years * * * tsat taxonomist will be able to quickly and massively analyze genotypes, and it will be no more expensive and no more difficult than cooking genitals. And what we are doing now will seem like a meaningless Stone Age fuss. But this fuss is a necessary step on the path of progress.

And does anyone really believe that in 100 years the taxonomy developed by living specialists will be used? Unlikely. There will be new guys who will again re-allocate the lectotypes of sareptensis, and reduce to synonyms what the mad elders of the early 21st century have done And will do taxonomy. using approaches that are still unknown to us. Or perhaps the taxonomy will be so polluted by then that all taxa will be canceled and a new taxonomy will be created based on the established taxonomy. To save biologists from pointless archaeological excavations and speculation about what was on the mind of the long-deceased Alferaks.

Can I talk about the yolks again? Tell me, where in the USSR do erate and crocea live together? I only know about the south of Ukraine-Kherson, Odessa, Crimea. Sochi, Dagestan. Somewhere else?

Where are the alphas and hyals together?

Can I talk about the yolks again? Tell me, where in the USSR do erate and crocea live together? I only know about the south of Ukraine-Kherson, Odessa, Crimea. Sochi, Dagestan. Somewhere else?

Where are the alphas and hyals together?

http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/pieri...ias-crocea.html
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/pieri...lias-erate.html

Do you mean to say that west of the Volga and south of Volgograd they meet together everywhere, until they turn into pure crocea in the west and south?

Do you mean to say that west of the Volga and south of Volgograd they meet together everywhere, until they turn into pure crocea in the west and south?

Where did you grow erat from?

I still don't know if Crocea lives here.
In all populations of the Volgograd region, pure crocea appear from time to time, both in appearance (and this is not just the color), and in the shape of the valva.
These specimens with the full package of Crocea traits are shown on the map.
Twenty years with the installation of different types (crocea and erate) I was looking for a mysterious and elusive population of butterflies that fly in and produce hybrid offspring that have both transitional forms and pure crocea.
Oh, woe is me, I never found it!
And they all show up. The grown offspring of Erat from different populations also have certain signs of crocea. It got to the point that this year, among the usual yellow males of erat, I caught a male that, according to all the signs of crocea, is only yellow.

ayc COI is also a protein-coding gene. But the nuclear genes that I looked at, they are also the same. COI in this group also shows well the spatial remoteness of populations or the presence of geographical barriers. So, the Central Asian erats differ from each other very well, approximately as from the seaside and Ukrainian ones, and better than the Ukrainian ones from the Jewish and Spanish Rabbits. Now it remains to compare their entire genomes... to again not understand anything
[/quote]

I asked about non-coding proteins. as for erath and croceus. if the change in growing conditions does not roughly turn erata into croceus, then the differences between them are genetic. if by all known genetic factors. if the distances between isolated populations are approximately equidistant, then we are talking about wedges (in the case of the erata from the Volga to the Altai) and subspecies. in this case, the zap-European croceus is a good subspecies of erata. the fact that erats can be yellow and orange (and in the latter case they are indistinguishable from croceus) it doesn't matter , because zap. - Heb. croceuses are not yellow. in many places (including the Balkans) there is a transition zone between the two subspecies, so there are relatively clean populations of both.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/31/2013 10: 10